I couldn't find this subject already proposed or developed, so I think it might be worth a new topic, because I see a huge elephant in the room here.

I salute many brilliant investigators in this forum, most of whom are intent in effectively dissecting the latest media hoaxes. That's great, but I think the most important thing would be trying to find out who's really behind the conspiracy to keep humanity in its present sorry state, and what, if anything, we can do about that. I mean, we can very effectively discover and denounce the media hoaxes here, but do we agree on who the "hoaxers" might be?

I think that's the most important thing, because they say you can’t fight an enemy if you haven't even identified it yet.

Many could say that it's what we're trying to do here too, but it's very difficult. Well, I don't know... Is it really so difficult? I used to think so, but I don't anymore. And I'll explain why here, so please bear with me.

Since I discovered that there is a giant conspiracy in the world, I've been trying to find out who rules the current state of civilization by looking in its darkest corners, trying to imagine who are the real people in power and where they could hide. But recently I've come to question this basic assumption. Are the "perpetrators", as they're often called in this forum, really hiding? Maybe, but do you remember E.A. Poe when he said – I think it was in "The Purloined Letter" – that the best way to hide something is "in plain sight"?

Allow me another, literal quote here: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize". It's attributed to Voltaire, although our beloved Wickedpedia considers it a "Voltaire misattribution" (of course!).

Let's try and apply it here anyway. Who are today the people we’re not allowed to criticize, to the point that you are heavily stigmatized and ostracized if you do?

I'm not going to respond to this question here, because I'm sure that everybody knows the answer. And also because even here mentioning a certain ethnic group makes people feel uncomfortable, including the administrators of this forum, who reasonably don't want it to be labeled in a certain way and lose its credibility.

So let’s not mention this group here. In a sense it's even useless to do it, because I'm positive that everybody here will understand who I'm referring to. And I think this is a very meaningful clue in itself... So I'll just talk about an "ethnic group" and use other generic terms, confident that you'll understand me anyway and hoping that you'll play along. It could also be an interesting experiment, no? Or maybe just a game, funny or not I don't know...

In fact, these people are so confident in their power and control of the media and of financial and political institutions that, while we should be afraid to mention them, they can even brag openly about what they're doing to the rest of the world. They say it plainly in countless books, newspapers and magazines (which they own, by the way), but also in public speeches in front of their own:"We rule Hollywood", "We control politics", "We own the banks", and so on. Anybody can verify this for themselves by doing a few web searches.

They even have a collective name for the rest of the world, talking about it as an inferior species even in their religious texts. Consider this: in a "multicultural" world where everybody is supposed to say "no to racism", they can be openly and often viciously racist (and act upon their racism in very concrete ways, not just theorize about it), and have people not noticing or justifying it.

And not only that. They're even considered "progressive freedom-fighters" by most people because in the last couple of centuries at least they've been actually leading organizations that fight for the rights of “oppressed minorities” and immigrants. Admirable, you might say. But the problem is that, in the most blatant case of "double standards", in their own state they do the exact opposite of what they preach in others, expanding their borders with terroristic violence and closing them to anybody who doesn't belong to their race (they even have DNA tests to insure that!). They want us to think that race is just a form of "cultural conditioning", while they do everything to preserve their own.

And isn't it significant that they're fighting their battles for the rights of minorities exclusively in the countries were the predominant race is still (but most probably not for long) the one their religious texts consider their worst enemy? They seem to be applying to the West the "divide and conquer" tactics that their sacred books, but also their religious and political leaders, often preach openly about. And they’re doing it to the point of taking us to the verge of what can be considered, to all effects and purposes, a genocide against the targeted race.

It seems pretty clear to me that there is only one ethnic group in the world who really stands to benefit from the havoc that "multiculturalism" and mass immigration (to mention just a couple of main problems of our times, but this group seems to be behind several others too, like the usury of banking systems, for example) is causing in the western world. It seems just reasonable to think it must be the same group that spreads these phenomena in the rest of the world while protecting itself from them.

And talking about protective measures, they have found the most effective of all. I won't say what it is, but I'll just ask this question: what is the only thing that in our current, relativistic society you cannot question, and you even risk being thrown to jail if you do? Really, you can question pretty much anything today: you can question, and even deny, God, love, religions, moral values. You can even question or deny, as we do here, the reality of gigantic hoaxes like 9 11 or the moon landings. Of course, if you do you can be ridiculed, sneered at, emotionally attacked, but at least you cannot be denounced or thrown in jail. Not yet.

No, really, what do you think is the strongest dogma in our current society? What is the only thing that you can't question without being defined a "negationist", as if just by questioning a specific event in history (as you're allowed to do with any other historical fact) you could be deemed capable of negating anything. How much more Orwellian can all this get?

So do we really need to look any further for the “perpetrators”? Aren’t they already in front of our eyes? Or maybe by denying this we can delude ourselves into thinking that if we did find them we could do something about it, but now we can’t because we don’t know them…

But after all, what could really be done? I honestly don’t know. If any of you does, I'm open to suggestions. We must concede to this ethnic group that they are incredibly resilient. They have resisted to thousands of years of harsh criticism, persecutions, expulsions and attempted exterminations. Maybe it’s because they’re programmed since birth to fight for their own against the rest of the world, even though mainly in a stealthy way. Being a small minority, they’ve learnt do defend themselves to survive. And wanting to rule the world, they have chosen the more effective method available: ruthless deceit. They can be considered “masters of lies”. They even have a “religious” rite to ask their God’s forgiveness not for the lies they’ve told (as they would want us to believe), but for the lies they already know they will tell in the year to come!

Here we say the media are “masters of lies”. But they admittedly own the media, so can we do the math?

Of course, they’ve also found other ways to exploit the weaknesses of human nature to their advantage. But now I want to question this: is it really an advantage to live as they do? Yes, they may be controlling the world, but at what price? They’re heavily traumatized practically at birth, when they are mutilated by a religious figure who even sucks their blood. Then they’re brainwashed to think that everybody else in the world is out to get them, so they live in fear and think they always have to defend themselves. And maybe to find the strength necessary to do this they have to consider themselves superior to everybody else, and entitled to lie continuously and to have no respect for what they consider lesser living beings, from animals they slaughter in a merciless way to other humans they treat at best with no respect. Would you want to live like this, even with all the power in the world? I wouldn’t. Would you?

So maybe, more than hated or feared, this people should ultimately be pitied, because I think it’s better to suffer evil than to do it. As an evangelist said a long time ago: “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet lose their soul?”

Or maybe I’m just too conditioned by my Christian upbringing. Perhaps, as we say in Italian: “Sono troppo… gentile!”

Now let me just conclude this long vent with another quote. It’s by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who denounced a true extermination of tens of millions of European, Christian people. Actually he inspired me to avoid naming the “perpetrators”, as he calls them too.

You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse.The October revolution was not what you call in America the ‘Russian Revolution’.It was an invasion and conquest over the Russian people.More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their bloodstained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time.The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrators.

The problem with your analysis is that you have not really identified who the "hoaxers" are; only what ethnic group they belong to.

This is equivalent to saying that because Mafia leaders are Italian. all Italians are responsible for crimes committed by the Mafia. Some african americans are criminals, does that give us the right to paint the entire race with the same brush?

Being, (by birth-not by choice) a member of the group you're referring to I can assure you that I (nor any of my siblings cousins, aunts uncles) have any desire, ability, or special powers or influence, or to commit any hoaxes. I have no more access to the mainstream media than any of my catholic, or muslim, friends.

While many of my fellow "ethnics' take offense when their entire group is criticized, I personally do not. I only feel sorry for those who make such statements, and those who actually believe that an entire ethnic group, race, or religion, can be painted with one brush.

For example, a few minutes of research pointed me to Leslie Moonves (CEO) and Sunmer Redstone (executive chairman majority shareholder) of CBS corporation. While I am not certain, let's assume that they were both born to Jewish parents. It is perfectly acceptable to hold those two individuals accountable for the actions of the CBS corporation, religious affiliation not withstanding. It is not acceptable to blame other members of that ethnic group for their actions. NOR is it acceptable to attribute the cause, or motivation, for their misdeeds to the fact that they are Jewish.

In conclusion, Although I can, and do, acknowledge that much of the mainstream media is owned/controlled by members of my religion, I believe that each person, each human being, is individually responsible for their own specific actions. To castigate, or vilify, an entire ethnic group, race, or religion, for the acts of a handful of the "elite" power brokers is not only naive and misguided; It is wrong, and it is the definition of prejudice. It is no different than saying that all muslims are terrorists.

omaxsteve wrote:To castigate, or vilify, an entire ethnic group, race, or religion, for the acts of a handful of the "elite" power brokers is not only naive and misguided; It is wrong, and it is the definition of prejudice.

Jumpy´s analysis is actually quite sober and level-headed, even charitable in some respects.

On the other hand, of course you know your own immediate reality to be completely different.

The only way you can both be right is if we split Jews into two isolated groups: Organized Jewry and Unorganized Jewry. The former occupy 50-80% of all visible key positions of influence in the world. The latter unthinkingly give them a good name.

The only way you can both be right is if we split Jews into two isolated groups: Organized Jewry and Unorganized Jewry. The former occupy 50-80% of all visible key positions of influence in the world. The latter unthinkingly give them a good name.

I agree with you, Flabbergasted, and I want to thank you for you comment.

As for what Omaxsteve writes, of course there are decent people in all ethnic groups, and you and your family and friends may very well be among them. And yes, I just wanted to identify the ethnic group to which the "hoaxers" might belong to, and you don't seem to contest the possibility that I'm right.

I just wanted to point out something: usually a people's religion represent its highest moral standards, don't you agree? Of course most people can't conform to these moral standards. And so, to use the example you've given, in Italy the moral standards are given by Christianity as expressed in the Gospels: love your neighbor as yourself, love even your enemies, turn the other cheek and so on. This is what we've been taught, and what we measure our moral value against. And then we have Mafia, which is the opposite of those moral standards, or it's at best a heavy degradation of them.

So if in a nation which refers to the Gospels for its moral standards we can have Mafia, I wonder what we can have in an ethnic group whose religious texts, which should establish its moral standards, preach racial superiority in the most vicious forms, to the extent of saying that the best members of the other races "deserve to be killed" and can and must be wronged in any possible way.

It seems to me that Christians are not taught to discriminate others but just the opposite, although we don't always manage to live up to what we're taught, while this other ethnic group is taught just that: discriminate and favor your own people at any cost to survive, prosper and rule the world.

But I'm sure that even in this group there are people who feel that the negative things their religion preaches are wrong, so if you are one of them, please suggest to me other colors with which to paint your people. Tell me how you distance yourself from the negative things you've been taught, if you think they're negative. And if in your religion (because that's how you define it) there are other, positive precepts you abide by, please let me know what they are. I'm open and I want to learn to appreciate what's good in everyone.

I believe we're all human beings, and the differences between us are given mainly by different conditionings, but if I see a conditioning that I consider bad, dangerous and damaging for humanity, I feel entitled to express my opinion, as I have done here.

So please, instead of generically talking about "prejudices", let me know what are the good principles of the religion we're talking about, and show me how they are applied by its members, or even only by yourself.

That´s a very big question you´re asking! I have very little affinity with the "spiritual economy" of Judaism, but to be objective and fair, I will come to Steve´s rescue (and save him a month´s work) by providing this link to a chapter on Judaism from Huston Smith´s book "The World´s Religions":https://www.dropbox.com/s/6199nfv3ps6x7 ... m.pdf?dl=0

I am linking to it for the sake of information, not as an endorsement. It poses that the Jews´ most significant contribution to humanity is the discovery of meaning in existence. It is as positive a look on Judaism as one could reasonably demand.

The only way you can both be right is if we split Jews into two isolated groups: Organized Jewry and Unorganized Jewry. The former occupy 50-80% of all visible key positions of influence in the world. The latter unthinkingly give them a good name.

I agree with you, Flabbergasted, and I want to thank you for you comment.

As for what Omaxsteve writes, of course there are decent people in all ethnic groups, and you and your family and friends may very well be among them. And yes, I just wanted to identify the ethnic group to which the "hoaxers" might belong to, and you don't seem to contest the possibility that I'm right.

I just wanted to point out something: usually a people's religion represent its highest moral standards, don't you agree? Of course most people can't conform to these moral standards. And so, to use the example you've given, in Italy the moral standards are given by Christianity as expressed in the Gospels: love your neighbor as yourself, love even your enemies, turn the other cheek and so on. This is what we've been taught, and what we measure our moral value against. And then we have Mafia, which is the opposite of those moral standards, or it's at best a heavy degradation of them.

So if in a nation which refers to the Gospels for its moral standards we can have Mafia, I wonder what we can have in an ethnic group whose religious texts, which should establish its moral standards, preach racial superiority in the most vicious forms, to the extent of saying that the best members of the other races "deserve to be killed" and can and must be wronged in any possible way.

It seems to me that Christians are not taught to discriminate others but just the opposite, although we don't always manage to live up to what we're taught, while this other ethnic group is taught just that: discriminate and favor your own people at any cost to survive, prosper and rule the world.

But I'm sure that even in this group there are people who feel that the negative things their religion preaches are wrong, so if you are one of them, please suggest to me other colors with which to paint your people. Tell me how you distance yourself from the negative things you've been taught, if you think they're negative. And if in your religion (because that's how you define it) there are other, positive precepts you abide by, please let me know what they are. I'm open and I want to learn to appreciate what's good in everyone.

I believe we're all human beings, and the differences between us are given mainly by different conditionings, but if I see a conditioning that I consider bad, dangerous and damaging for humanity, I feel entitled to express my opinion, as I have done here.

So please, instead of generically talking about "prejudices", let me know what are the good principles of the religion we're talking about, and show me how they are applied by its members, or even only by yourself.

I'd be grateful if you or anybody else could do this.

In answer to the question posed by Jumpy: While I am not in any way religious , or orthodox, I did attend a private Jewish day school from Grade one to seven. While I was far from the most attentive student I do not remember any of our Torah (bible) studies referring to "the best members of other races deserving to be killed" not to any religious text citing to "discriminate and favour your own people at any cost to survive prosper and rule the world" My memory is of religious text which went on and on in detail how to worship god, by living your life according to "his" rules. Resting on the Sabbath, eating certain foods, praying three times a day, etc. The most memorable portion of the old testament was of course the ten commandments.

If it is your impression, Jumpy, that the youth among the Jewish population are being taught to hate other ethnic groups, and that there is some sort of negative conditioning accorded to all Jewish born children, I believe that you are either be delusional, or badly misinformed. Having lived among Jews for the majority of my life, I can tell you that just as in any other ethnic group, there are both; good and bad - generous and greedy -honest and deceptive - kind and mean, people. As far as the "good" principles of the religion, I was taught to honour and respect my parents and my elders, to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, not to be jealous of what others had, but most importantly I was taught that to be truly happy in life you had to be able to look at yourself in the mirror and be proud of who you see. In other words taking advantage of other people, cheating, stealing, etc. while perhaps bringing some giving short term gain, would result in a lifetime of regret. Another important lesson that was instilled in me from a very young age was NOT to pre-judge people because of their ethnicity, background, religion, skin color etc, but instead to judge each person only by their own actions.

As I have aged I have come to realize that most if not all religions, are based on some sort of faith in an "almighty" or super natural being that can never be proven to exist. I have been "turned off" of religion because I find it to be a "money grab" and also very divisive. Too many people have been killed , and too many wars have been fought in the name of religion.

In conclusion, Jumpy, if it makes you feel good to hold the Jews as a scapegoat for everything wrong in the world, you are entitled to your opinion. What I find ironic about that position is that it seems to be a very similar strategy to that used by the "hoaxsters" e.g. painting Muslims as terrorists. or previously painting communists as evil doers that would have "nuked" the west if only the west did not have a nuclear response capability.

I appreciate your efforts to "out" the perpetrators of all the media fakery and hoaxes, but whether they are Jews, Christians , or Muslims, Hindu, or atheists is largely , in my opinion, irrelevant.

@Flabbergasted. I am not sure that I needed to be "defended" but thanks anyway. I will definitely read the article you linked to when I have the chance. AS for splitting the Jews into two distinct groups, I believe that there are much more than two distinct groups within the Jewish community. There are ultra orthodox hassidics, there are Ashkenazi Jews, there are Sephardic Jews, there are conservative Jews, and many other distinctive groups that all have Jewish heritage. As for their being organized, and unorganized Jewish groups I am not personally aware of the existence of this type of "organization" you are referring to. As for Jews holding 50 to 80% of all the visible key positions of influence, you may be right but I am not sure that this is factual ( how did you arrive at this percentage? which positions are defined as "key positions of influence? are you talking of the world as a whole or just North America?). Even if were factual it is, in my opinion, largely irrelevant. I am fairly certain that there are a disproportionate number of Jews in positions of influence and power, as well as there are a disproportionate number of Jews in academia, medicine, law, finance, accounting, etc. I believe that is primarily due to the importance that Jewish parents place on education. As a group I believe that there is a disproportionate percentage of Jews (compared to other religious group) that have attended college, university and post graduate studies.

Thank you, Flabbergasted, I will look at the text, as soon as I manage to download it (I don't have a dropbox account yet). But maybe it would be good if Steve, like other people here who follow his religion, did his homework anyway, because since he resented my analysis he probably wants to distance himself from certain "controversial" aspects that are taught in his spiritual texts of reference. I'd be very happy if he could do that, contributing to shattering what he considers unjustified prejudices (as in fact he just did while I was writing my post, so I haven't read it yet, but I will right away).

You seem to imply it would be more difficult for him. Why? Could it be because people born and raised in Western countries, religious or not, are at least supposed to live by principles similar to those contained in the Gospels (in fact, even atheists in the West are taught and encouraged to respect all human - and often even non human - beings, to make no distinctions between people of different ethnic origins, to be fair towards everybody, and to tell the truth), while to proclaim and live by these same standards, which are normal for us, adherents of his religion would have to go against what they're taught in their sacred texts?

I think the question I'm raising is very relevant to what we're trying to do here, because in this forum we often criticize harshly and go against a small group of people who, whoever they are, control the overwhelming majority of humanity by lying to us, deceiving us and disrespecting us as if we were not fellow human beings but lesser creatures to use and exploit at will.

Western people are taught to believe that this is wrong, so even if there must be people of all ethnic groups in the controlling elite, of course, at least our "western" oppressors can't brag openly about what they're doing because they know it would be considered extremely wrong in our culture (actually also in almost all other cultures too).

But what happens if we discover that there is one ethnic group that preaches openly (at least to its members) even in their scriptures, that lying, deceiving, exploiting and even killing is wrong only if you do it to your people, but you can and often must do it to every other ethnic group? And what happens if we discover also that this same small ethnic minority disproportionately occupies, quoting Flabbergasted's estimate, "50-80% of all visible key positions of influence in the world"?

Aren't we allowed at least to point out this fact, and maybe even to question the possibility that it's only a coincidence?

Apparently not, at least in the mainstream world. But I think we should do it here, if we're trying to understand what's really happening in the world, shouldn't we? Don't you think it could help us discover at least one of the factors that may motivate those we call "the perpetrators"?

Last edited by jumpy64 on October 1st, 2015, 6:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I want to thank you, Steve, for sharing your experience. I don't want to doubt anything you say, but from it I gather that you have never read the Talmud. So if you did now, maybe you would understand better what I'm talking about.

At this point it would be interesting if somebody here, who shares your religious background, has been taught using the Talmud, in addition to the Torah. There should be, since it's one of the most widely read Jewish texts. Maybe it's taught only to adults? I don't know, I'm just asking. I wouldn't want to add another division in groups here,but maybe there are people who follow the Torah and others who follow the Talmud, I don't know. It seems to me that the latter are the ones in power, also judging by their public declarations. There are so many of them, by the way, and maybe you could read them too, if you want.

I have formed my opinions on certain things, as you can gather also from my previous post, but an open discussion like the one we're having here can help me (and maybe others too) to refine them.

omaxsteve wrote:As for Jews holding 50 to 80% of all the visible key positions of influence, you may be right but I am not sure that this is factual ( how did you arrive at this percentage? which positions are defined as "key positions of influence? are you talking of the world as a whole or just North America?).

I knew you would call my attention to this loose estimate, and you are right: it is not possible to calculate objectively, both because "key position" is an ill-defined concept and because we can´t say for sure whether someone is Jewish unless stated publicly. My estimate, loose as it is, is based on decades of observation and study, the longstanding cultural or strategic tactic of "underreporting of Jewishness" among influential Jews, website analyses like "who controls banking/big media/social engineering, etc" (the hotlinks no longer work) and books like "Jews in Russia and in the USSR", by Diky. Here is a link to the latter: https://www.dropbox.com/s/owz57p1gav8fs ... a.pdf?dl=0Take a look at the lists beginning on page 313.

omaxsteve wrote:Even if were factual it is, in my opinion, largely irrelevant.

jumpy64 wrote:Thank you, Flabbergasted, I will look at the text, as soon as I manage to download it (I don't have a dropbox account yet).

I don´t think you need an account to download or read online. You may be prompted to open one, but I believe you can just decline and proceed.

jumpy64 wrote:You seem to imply it would be more difficult for him. Why?

No, all I wanted to say was that such a question ("what are the good principles of the religion we're talking about?") is very hard work for any person, even a committed student of philosophy and religion, to answer in writing. I figured sharing Smith´s text would save sweat and serve as a subsidy for the second round in the debate (rather than just fleshing out the same positions and speculations).

jumpy64 wrote:I want to thank you, Steve, for sharing your experience. I don't want to doubt anything you say, but from it I gather that you have never read the Talmud. So if you did now, maybe you would understand better what I'm talking about.

At this point it would be interesting if somebody here, who shares your religious background, has been taught using the Talmud, in addition to the Torah. There should be, since it's one of the most widely read Jewish texts. Maybe it's taught only to adults? I don't know, I'm just asking. I wouldn't want to add another division in groups here,but maybe there are people who follow the Torah and others who follow the Talmud, I don't know. It seems to me that the latter are the ones in power, also judging by their public declarations. There are so many of them, by the way, and maybe you could read them too, if you want.

I have formed my opinions on certain things, as you can gather also from my previous post, but an open discussion like the one we're having here can help me (and maybe others too) to refine them.

Im all for open discussion. "One of the most widely read Jewish texts"? Where do you get that information from? Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation? the fact that "some" jews are in influential positions and 'some" people in influential positions participate in hoaxes does not mean that the fact that they are "jewish" is what makes them to become "power hungry" or "bad" people. That is why I say that their religion is irrelevant, it is only their actions as individuals that they should be held accountable for. Here is an interesting, albeit long. article written by a Muslim ....

By: Dr Farrukh Saleem

The writer is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007, and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist.Why are Jews so powerful?

There are only 14 million Jews in the world; seven million in the Americas , five million in Asia, two million in Europe and 100,000 inAfrica. For every single Jew in the world there are100 Muslims.

Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerfulthan all the Muslims put together.Ever wondered why?

Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish.Albert Einstein, the most influential scientist of all time andTIME magazine's 'Person of the Century', was a Jew.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis was a Jew.So were Karl Marx, Paul Samuelson and Milton Friedman.

Here are a few other Jews whose intellectual outputhas enriched the whole humanity:

Benjamin Rubin gave humanity the vaccinating needle.Jonas Salk developed the first polio vaccine.Albert Sabin developed the improved live polio vaccine.Gertrude Elion gave us a leukemia fighting drug.Baruch Blumberg developed the vaccination for Hepatitis B.

Paul Ehrlich discovered a treatment for syphilis.Elie Metchnikoff won a Nobel Prize in infectious diseases.Bernard Katz won a Nobel Prize in neuromuscular transmission.Andrew Schally won a Nobel in endocrinology.Aaron Beck founded Cognitive Therapy.

Gregory Pincus developed the first oral contraceptive pill.George Wald won a Nobel for our understanding of the human eye.Stanley Cohen won a Nobel in embryology.Willem Kolff came up with the kidney dialysis machine.

Over the past 105 years, 14 million Jews have won 15-dozen Nobel Prizes while only three Nobel Prizes have been won by 1.4 billionMuslims (other than Peace Prizes).Why are Jews so powerful?Stanley Mezor invented the first micro-processing chip.Leo Szilard developed the first nuclear chain reactor;Peter Schultz, optical fibre cable;Charles Adler, traffic lights;Benno Strauss, Stainless steel;Isador Kisee, sound movies;Emile Berliner, telephone microphone;Charles Ginsburg, videotape recorder.

The most beneficent philanthropist in the history of the world is George Soros, a Jew, who has so far donated a colossal $4 billion most of which has gone as aid to scientists and universities around the world.

Second to George Soros is Walter Annenberg, another Jew, who has built a hundred libraries by donating an estimated $2 billion.

At the Olympics, Mark Spitz set a record of sorts by winning seven gold medals; Lenny Krayzelburg is a three-time Olympic gold medalist.Spitz, Krayzelburg and Boris Becker (Tennis) are all Jewish.

So, why are Jews so powerful?Answer : EDUCATIONWhy are Muslims so powerless?

There are an estimated 1,476,233,470 Muslims on the face of the planet: one billion in Asia, 400 million in Africa, 44 million in Europe and six million in the Americas . Every fifth human being is a Muslim; for every single Hindu there are two Muslims, for every Buddhist there are two Muslims and for every Jew there are one hundred Muslims.

Ever wondered why Muslims are so powerless?Here is why: There are 57 member-countries of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and all of them put together have around500 universities; one university for every three million Muslims. The United States has 5,758 universities and India has 8,407.

In 2004, Shanghai Jiao Tong University compiled an 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' , and intriguingly, not one universityfrom Muslim-majority states was in the top-500.

As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent.

A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state witha literacy rate of 100 per cent.

Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.

Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same.

Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million.In the entire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs. (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million).

Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while the Christian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.

Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge!

Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society.

In Pakistan, there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK , the number of booktitles per million stands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.

Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge.

Exports of high technology products as a percentage of total exports are an important indicator of knowledge application. Pakistan 's export of high technology products as a percentage of total exports stands at one per cent. The same for Saudi Arabia is 0.3 per cent; Kuwait, Morocco, and Algeria are all at 0.3 per cent, while Singapore is at 58 per cent.

No, Steve, I strongly disagree with you on this. On a social, collective level, it can't all boil down to the actions of "individuals". That's one of the myths that's destroying our society. A team effort is required even to win a football match, for example. It's only in a strong, compact and united team that the talents of individuals can shine. And this is especially true if you are a minority: you have to stick together, and your ethnic group is very good at this, regardless of the kind of tactics it employs. Otherwise, why would you have so many influential organizations to protect Israeli interests all over the world and especially in the US?

It's a fact: your people have a strong ethnic identity and protect it extremely well. I see them even applying almost military tactics in a context of an "us against them","divide and conquer" mentality. I might be mistaken, but I don't think so. After all, any good general knows that you must try and divide your enemy, especially if it far outnumbers you. That, I believe, it's the role of certain "activists", for example, in spreading "multiculturalism" only in certain parts of the world. But I've already said this, and I don't want to repeat mysef more than I have already, as Flabbergasted pointed out.

After all, mine is not even a criticism in this context. Other "teams" should learn from yours about "team effort" and play a much better game.

Therefore, if you don't see this, I don't know what else to say. You keep downplaying the role of your people's strong collective identity, exalting the role of "individuals" instead. It's against all odds that so many individuals of a very small minority occupy most positions of power just by chance, or because of a "superior intellect" - as our friend Miles Mathis would say - or of other similarly unconvincing explanations.

Jumpy, why are you leaving all of us in the dark? You've made repeated reference to Talmud provisions that apparently can be summarized as anti-Goyim 'kill 'em all' commands, but apparently can't be bothered to provide them for us to read.

Why are you leaving it to each of us to do the research to find these provisions? You've failed at the most basic posting etiquette and rules here, and act as if you have no familiarity with the forum at all.

Please immediately set forth quoted material from the Talmud so all of us can familiarize themselves with what you're going on about.

I'm sorry, fbenario, I certainly don't mean to be rude, but here we're talking about things for which you can be criminally persecuted in several countries, including Italy, were even websites administrators have been arrested and their websites have been closed for "incitement to hatred" and other similar "thought crimes". In fact, as I said in my first post on this thread, even the administrators of this forum have expressed discomfort about this topic in posts I remember reading here.

And if I'm being even blatantly overcautious here, it's to make the censorship that exists strikingly more evident, because I consider it a very telling anomaly in itself. It speaks more eloquently, I believe, than any more specific words I could use.

So, yes you'll have to do your research, sorry. It's really not difficult, especially for skilled researchers like us. But if you need a little help here, and you want to go to the crux of the matter directly, you can start by googling "talmudic quotes against gentiles" (even without quotations marks) and see where it takes you.

Or if you want a more general context, or to verify the quotes, you can read about the central importance of the Babylonian Talmud on Wikipedia, and even search the Talmud online.